Find a Lawyer

SHAHZAD KAJ OVERLOCK versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

On the basis of the notes under section 66 of Section 154, 56 and 58 of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) of the General Clause Act (X of 1897), Section 27 of the Service Notice Finalized. The Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, acted on the brother of the complainant / SCC, and while mentioning only one assessment year, the department acknowledged that the assessment was mentioned in the notice only one assessment year due to ric clari error. Notice under section 588 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, intended to mention all three assessment years. Legally the notice was prepared only after mentioning one year, while the assessment of the stable pre-assessment was compiled for three years and this error was attributed to a clerical interval even though the preparation and issuance of the legal notice. The basis for the diagnosis was strict adherence to the law. The service of the notice was not made by the Securities pursuant to the Act, Income Tax Ordinance, N 154 of 1979, which was read with section 27 of the General Clause Act, 1897, and the assessment was made on a cyclic styled print form, In which the same data were adopted for each year to determine the extent and volume of the business in relation to the number. Neglect and apathy regarding the installation of machines, the number of employees, the location of the shop, the rates to be received, etc., together with the neglect, carelessness and inability to issue notices. The disrespectful and irrational behavior was reflected in the praise. The Federal Tax Ombudsman of Corruption suggested that the statute enacted in 2003 from 6 2001 to 6 2003 best law firm from Mubarik Pur lawyer